[whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims

Christoph Päper christoph.paeper at crissov.de
Thu Dec 13 20:42:16 PST 2007

2007-12-14 02:40 Ian Hickson:
> I do not believe anyone has suggested we use H.264 as the common  
> codec.

I would support it as *a* common codec, if it only /must/ be  
supported (transparently) when an underlying (plugin) framework,  
operating system or hardware provides it, and otherwise only /should/  
be supported. The same applies to other formats from MPEG and Ogg alike.

That leaves the encoding side, though.

> As far as I can tell, there are no satisfactory codecs today.

For several, but not all definitions of 'satisfactory', yes.

> If we are to make progress, we need to change the landscape.

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts!? (Attributed to  

>  * Make significant quantities of compelling content available  
> using one
>    of the royalty-free codecs,

You Tube (or porn) is more important than Wikipedia in this regard.

>    so that the large companies have a reason to take on the risk of  
> supporting it.
>  * Convince one of the largest companies to distribute a royalty-free
>    codec, taking on the unknown liability, and make this widely  
> known, to
>    attract patent trolls.

For Opera doesn't seem large enough that only leaves two commercial  
browser (and operating system) vendors. (Yes, I ignore the handheld  

>  * Negotiate with the patent holders of a non-royalty-free codec to  
> find a
>    way that their codec can be used royalty-free.

I actually can imagine this happening, but only for playback.

>  * Change the patent system in the various countries that are  
> affected by
>    the patent trolling issue. (It's not just the US.)

That's the noblest, broadest and hardest approach I guess. Probably  
the most expensive, too.

PS: What format for animated truecolor (alpha-channeled) bitmap  
images should HTML5 recommend ('should') or require ('must')? ;)

More information about the whatwg mailing list